This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kautt, P. M. Articles by Delone, M. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Sentencing Outcomes Under Competing But Coexisting Sentencing Interventions: Untying The Gordian Knot

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge

Miriam A. Delone

University of Nebraska Lincoln

The latest evolutionary phase of criminal sentencing is a return to determinate sentencing structures. However, the concurrent application of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum statutes in various jurisdictions often distorts and convolutes evaluations of such interventions’ effectiveness. To remedy this problem, the effects of such distinct reforms must be separated from one another. Previous research has been unsuccessful in accomplishing this task. The authors attempt to remedy this deficiency by using 1997-1998 federal sentencing data to isolate the effects of the minima from those of the guidelines and assessing how the predictors and conditioners of sentencing outcomes vary between them. The authors find several significant and some unexpected differences in the effect of predictors across models of incarceration and sentence length for the two intervention types.

Key Words: sentencing • sentencing guidelines • mandatory minimum statutes • determinate sentencing • federal courts • judicial decision making • drug offenses

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, 105-131 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0734016806290138


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Kautt and K. Mueller-Johnson Cross-Jurisdictional Disposition Variability Under Sentencing Guidelines: The Example of Equivalent Sex Offenses Criminal Justice Review, September 1, 2009; 34(3): 350 - 381. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. D. Hartley Sentencing Reforms and the War on Drugs: An Analysis of Sentence Outcomes for Narcotics Offenders Adjudicated in U.S. District Courts on the Southwest Border Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, November 1, 2008; 24(4): 437 - 461. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Hong Lu and Bin Liang Legal Responses to Trafficking in Narcotics and Other Narcotic Offenses in China International Criminal Justice Review, June 1, 2008; 18(2): 212 - 228. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. T. Ulmer, M. C. Kurlychek, and J. H. Kramer Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, November 1, 2007; 44(4): 427 - 458. [Abstract] [PDF]